Does RA theory cut it?

[Simonflyer]

The recent post on SIGMETS has pointed something out to me that i hadnt thought of for a while.

 

The theory side of RA could do with a real spruce up and for more onus to be put into operational theory for people making their way to XC endorsements.Also some of the human factors questions are pretty out there and confusing.If we are going to use the same airfields, fly in the same weather, and use the same radios as GA, our operational theory should at the very least be on a par with GA.after studying both, i dont think the RA stuff is quite there yet.

 

There is no excuse for not making the effort to read WX charts just because were not GA flying or because its a bit tricky to start with.Nor is there any excuse for not knowing procedures for particular airfields, or flying shoddy ccts or joining procedures or any other range of "mistakes" that are made by lots of pilots (in both RA and GA i might add).The truth is that these are not mistakes at all-its just a lack of effort and a lack of care that can put themselves and others in danger...

 

There is information readily available to make all the codes quite understandable in both the VFR day guide, and the AIP.Yes these books can be a bit hard to reference at the start as it's mostly a new language(alternate's/minimas etc), but the theory side of flying is just as important as the practical, and it could save your life one day..Just blasting of into the sky is mostly ok if your in the cct or training area as you can look up and go "yep it aint too bad",and you probably know the drill, but once you start doing NAV's that is a pretty big risk especially around weather info and other aerodromes.

 

Getting back to the point..It really isnt that hard if youve got the reference and will to go and do it regulary.Bloody hell if i can read a WX report anyone can!..I try and check the aviation weather as often as possible even if im not flying, and after a while it has started to be readable just as if it was in plain text.When i dont know what is going on i try and figure it out with the books.

 

As is often the case when people cant be bothered, they start blaming the system and trying to change stuff instead of acknowledging their own lack of effort.

 

 

[flying dog]

Hi Simonflyer.

 

Couple of things. Mearly statements.

 

I can appreciate both sides of the discussion about SIGMET format.

 

1: They are complicated/difficult to read.

 

2: That is how they have always been.

 

Although the technology may exist to make the easier to read, is there really a need, but: HOW does someone become proficiant at reading them?

 

It is one thing to look at the letters and THINK you understand them. You go flying, have a safe trip and so it re-enforces (to you) that you understand them.

 

This is a bad thing, as one day something will be there which you don't understand or dismiss as trivial. THEN YOU DIE!

 

This is not good.

 

I try to understand them and often check with others with my understanding of them.

 

On the other hand, if we make them THAT easy to read - ie: using common English words - it would not be fair on people in other countrys and it would/could go from a couple of lines to a whole parragraph - ultimately telling you nothing more.

 

(P.S. "up is still up even when you're upside down" YOUR is the wrong word.)

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Hey flying dog. We don't go correcting each other's spelling around here. You'll be far too busy, and he who lives in glass houses ..... (mearly?)

 

Hmmm - we still don't have a decent tongue-in-cheek smilie.

 

I'll settle for a little ass whoopin' :mulie:

 

 

[HEON]

I personally think the RAA theory is a bit light on and know a couple of CFI,s who add to it with bits of GA. Good on them.

 

I don't think that the problem is not known to RAA Administration but they have a problem as I think it is quite OK (and they must too) if you only fly in your local area as a number do.

 

The problem is RAA aircraft are now undertaking trips that were normally done in GA. That is probably why there are a lot more endorcements available now in RAA.

 

I think:

 

1. The basic RAA licence SHOULD be kept basic to allow a low cost entry for people who only wish to, or aircraft are only able, to fly "local",

 

2. There should be reasionably priced endorcements to allow RAA pilots to obtain additional knowlege when THEY want it. Note I do not mean to PPL level as I have seen the level of a lot of PPL holders and they do not display what I feel is a sufficent level, and

 

3. Any person with a RAA certificate, radio and cross country endorcement who think that all required to fly all over Australia have rocks in there head.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

This has been commented on before several times. Both the theory and practical are more suited to the earlier days when we (you) flew a little (lot) slower and in aircraft a lot lighter and less capable. It may be one of the reasons that CASA are delaying the weight increases and other things that the RAAus are pushing for. Surley it would be better to do this off our own bat before CASA insist on it. Plus it will put things in proper order. better training now then more freedom. It is getting very close to the stage were there is very litle difference betwen GA and REC operations at the heavier end.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[flying dog]

Well here's a thought:

 

Although X-Country allows you to fly away, maybe an "extended" X-Country ticket should be introduced. OR a weather course.

 

That way it gives deeper knowledge of weather and trip planning.

 

Then: If the person does want to fly from A - B they get their XC cert' but if they seriously want to do trips, do the extended course and get more info which will be useful.

 

How's that?

 

 

[flying dog]

Oh: Forgive me Stlarti. It was kinda tongue in cheek.

 

And I know I am hopeless at spelling myself. It just doesn't help when you are reading incorrect words which re-enforce the wrong things in your own mind.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ive mentioned this before and been screamed at, so its nice to see the culture is slowly changing..

 

Dog, i can't see any advantage in having an extended XC endo.. If done properly the XC endo covers it well enough.. If you can read wx reports, you can read them.. Distance is not the issue.. Just more planning needed..

 

In my mind there is no differance between RAA theory and GA.. I realise the testing required knowlage is lacking but that doesn't mean the "teaching" has to be..

 

:thumb_up:

 

 

[turboplanner]

WX? Now I wonder what that means.

 

Something to think about:

 

It would appear to me that adopting GA BAK, Radio, Met, and Nav theory would not add substantially to cost or study time, and would reduce a lot of confusion among pilots using the same fields at the same time.

 

Those who struggle with theory would get the added benefit that live theory courses at or near strategic airfields would become more viable.

 

 

[Simonflyer]

Good idea turbo..

 

Im currently doing my CPL theory and im doing it because it dont cost a thing compared to the flying, and while i do some saving to get me to the next phase i can study all i like..its pretty much the same from BAK level up..I just have to be disciplined and sit down and do it, and have a few spare bob to buy the books.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I just had a quick look through the RAAus syllabus for the XC endorsement & it looks pretty comprehensive to me. I'd be interested to hear (as I'm sure would the Ops Manager) what areas people think aren't sufficiently covered.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

I believe that the theory is only as good as to how much effort the student is willing to put in. The basis of a syllabus is there but it's up to the individual to do the work and the flying school to assist in the learning process.

 

I gained my certification by learning from PPL instructors and passed my exams set by the CFI of the school. I did the PPL BAK and believe I was trained under PPL standards in the RAAus syllabus.

 

Having said that, my knowledge can always be increased by learning more and increasing my study load so really it's up to me to know the theory.

 

So I think it just comes down to how much effort you put in.

 

 

[Yenn]

Just a question.

 

How many of you have access to the AIP, The Visual Flight Guide and ERSA?

 

Have you studied them and do you understand them?

 

From my reading of this forum I think there are a few who do not know of their existence and that is not to denigrate them, but shows how well their training was conducted.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Don't kid yourself about how much more PPLs get taught. Many of us probably use the exact same books: ATC Student Pilot kit and a Bob Tait or Jim Davis PPL book.

 

Same goes for the CTA endorsement that people worry about us getting and not being up to scratch compared to GA. There is hardly any CTA training for PPL. A few flights and whatever you pick up from the ATC Flight Radio book, which is far from complete on the subject.

 

We are a long way from CPL and ATPL theory, but on par with what you can expect from a PPL.

 

 

[turboplanner]

My main point was that while the two systems have much in common, they are slightly different which leads to some confusion at times, and frustration to people flying recreationally (now and again) in both systems (GA and RA).

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Don't kid yourself about how much more PPLs get taught. Many of us probably use the exact same books: ATC Student Pilot kit and a Bob Tait or Jim Davis PPL book.Same goes for the CTA endorsement that people worry about us getting and not being up to scratch compared to GA. There is hardly any CTA training for PPL. A few flights and whatever you pick up from the ATC Flight Radio book, which is far from complete on the subject.

 

We are a long way from CPL and ATPL theory, but on par with what you can expect from a PPL.

:thumb_up: Spot on right there!

 

 

[Paul Turner]

Great question Simon Flyer and bound to fire up some interesting debate.

 

Unfortunately I believe there is no simple answer; or perhaps more accurately, there is no SINGLE answer to this question. I’ll attempt to extract myself from the paling fence I seem to be perched on and put it another way. There IS a correct amount and level of education that you need to be a safe and competent pilot and that requirement is primarily determined by:

 

1 the type of flying you intend to do

 

2 the type of aircraft you intend to fly and

 

3 your personal qualities (how easily you pick up new information and what type of learning works for you).

 

The problem we have is that we all want simple solutions to complex questions and we strive for a ‘one size fits all’ approach. So, maybe the question is just incomplete. Does RA theory cut it… for what you want to do and who you are? The answer… maybe.

 

If all I want to do is stay insight of the airfield in my Drifter, then RAAus theory requirements probably exceed my requirements.

 

If I want to get in my go-fast machine and travel hundreds of miles in a day, then maybe I need more than what the standard RAAus syllabus offers.

 

I’ve also seen some very good and very poor ‘ground school’ at GA and RAAus schools so again you need to think about what your needs are and match them to what is being offered at the school.

 

So, I believe that if someone thinks they will be safer and more professional in the air with a more complete understanding of aviation theory, then look for it anywhere you can. Go to a GA school, look for on-line resources or book yourself into a Bob Tait course and sit the CASA PPL theory exam.

 

I think RAAus has the right idea by breaking the education up to match a number of different endorsements. This tends to make us more focused on the question ‘what information do I need to do what I want to do in my aircraft?’

 

 

[flying dog]

motzartmerv

 

Errr, I am only talking and discussing my ideas.

 

Reading this thread and another one, I think I shall have to put on some armour.

 

I am not always good at taking humour when it is badly worded.

 

:peepwall:

 

 

[octave]

If RA theory does not cut it (and I am yet to make up my mind) how does this manifest itself in practice?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Dog, mate, don't take things so personally.. You said you were "discussing" ideas... Isn't a discussion between 2 or more people??.. you posted an idea, and i responded with my thoughts on the idea.. Thats what a discussion is, thats what a discussion forum is all about..

 

Regarding the other thread, i merely offered you some advice. You can take or leave that advice as you see fit. I could have thrown rocks at you and said you made a crucial error in judjment and exersized poor aimanship, but i didn't.. Because honest post's like yours help others (like myself) learn...I would hate to be seen as discouraging such discussion.. But remember, it is discussion, otherwise you should just start a thread telling us all how it is....

 

cheers

 

 

[farri]

I wouldn`t want to be trying to run the RAA these days.

 

There`s an old saying that goes like this,"You can please some of the people some of the time,some of the people all of the time but you`ll never please all of the people all of the time".

 

Let`s not forget what the AUF/RAA was initally formed to do, it was to promote and

 

administer Ultralight flying outside of controlled airspace,now called class G airspace.

 

We have now evolved into a membership base where there are those who wish to fly into controlled airspace and have all the privilages of GA and I personaly don`t have a problem with this, but I do believe it is for those who wish to do so, to do what it takes, and therefore, it may require that the theory subjects be done at a GA school.

 

The RAA sylubus of training,which is in the Ops manual, covers everything that is required for those who choose to stay in class G airspace,and there are still many,it doesn`t dictate where anyone must learn their theory from,it is up to the individual to decide,anyone who chooses to do GA theory courses or study from GA theory manuals,is free to do so.

 

We could discuss wheather theory manuals writen for AUF/RAA are comprehensive enough for quite a long time.

 

Frank.

 

Frank.

 

 

[skydog]

On reading the weather

 

I believe language should be easy to understand for the average and not so average population. Go to the lowest common denominator type of thinking.

 

Yes, us weekend warriors theoretically should all be up to scratch on the terms and abbreviations but maybe with fewer cross country flights being taken some of those terms may be forgotten or not so sure.

 

I liken this subject to lawyer speak, why is there a concerted push to simplify legalise?. Why is there leglislation making this mandatory in consumer law?

 

One of my pet hates for a long time was the American way of spelling. Why cant those yankees learn the correct Queens english? Color is spelled colour for Gods sake!!!

 

However I have changed my opinion lately.

 

If color can be easily understood and spelled more easily then why not??

 

Jail / Goal, aluminium / aluminum, and so on.

 

I reckon the weather abbreviations were for short , space saving reports and a hangover from the old days of fax and telex communications to professional pilots. Today, with a lot more recreational pilots than in the past and the advent of computer plus the WWW, sorry, World Wide, Web, we have the space to take full words and print them out for our flight planning.

 

Unambiguous, clear, simple communication should be the goal and lead to safer flying outcomes.

 

The huamn biran iz amiznag , srue we cna raed mepslled wrods heowvor I say clear communication is easier.

 

Chow, or is that Ciao?? Oh damn it , Goodbye.

 

Still love this new smilie:rilla:

 

 

[facthunter]

Language and understanding.

 

Print the word phonetically and it might sound alright, but you have in many cases thrown away the word structure and with it clues to the word meaning. Far more serious is selective perception, where you only take on board that which agrees with what you already believe. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting, I'm currently reading a book on how the Mayan hieroglyphics were cracked, allowing those ancient people to communicate with us today.

 

To do it the decipherers had to work out their grammar where each sentence starts with a verb, going something like "walks to the river Big Quetzl", but in the written form, where most glyphs are a complete picture which would take hours to write.

 

So we've come a long way from there.

 

But, Skydog, the biggest shock I got was reading a book by Bill Bryson, a very amusing travel writer, who obviously had done some massive research for his treatise on English.

 

It appears that when the first English people populated the US, they were so isolated for so many years that when regular seafaring began the English had moved on with the language, having mixed with various other countries around the world and changed the words and spelling.

 

So what we critise so often, for the most part is purer and older English than we use today. (Before Shakespeare's time the English used to spell centre as center etc.)

 

He also came up with a good philosphy on keeping up with the evolution of the language and gave many examples of "in" words which have quickly died without a trace.

 

The phonetic teaching of the late 20th Century ("it doesn't matter if you can't spell as long as someone else can understand what you say") also appears to have been dropped like a hot rock by the education industry.

 

However, good old Microsoft will probably decide how we go over the next decade or so with it's ever present spell check.

 

Personally, I've been working for a US company most of this year and have become bi-lingual, converting to inches, specifying equipment to be made from aluminum, and so on.

 

I agree that Perception, and Comprehension are a whole different ball game.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Not sure where the Poms were when they came up with that one.

I believe the Poms had just been invaded by the "Frogs" ;-)